Alan Yatvin has joined the law firm of Weir LLP as a partner, where he continues to be available to serve Popper & Yatvin’s clients. Alan chairs the firm’s Civil Rights and Special Education Practice Groups.  Weir LLP is a full-service law firm that handles a broad range of legal matters practically, effectively, and economically, for both businesses and individuals. The firm has offices in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and New York. Alan is based in Weir’s Philadelphia office, 1339 Chestnut Street, Suite 500, Philadelphia, PA 19107. He can be reached at (215) 665-8181, or through the Weir LLP website.

Howard Popper retired from the practice of law.  After nearly four decades as a trial attorney, Howard is spending time with family and his dogs and catching up on some long overdue travel.

Our blog will find a new home on Weir’s website, where Alan continues his observations on legal sundry on the Weir LLP Blog. You can also find Alan on LinkedIn, where he posts his latest news.

We thank all the clients and colleagues who have supported us over the years and trusted us to care for their legal needs. We hope you will continue to reach out to Alan, so that he and Weir LLP can assist you with all you legal needs.

The post About us appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

July 27, 1983, Somewhere in New Jersey.  I am aboard Amtrak’s Garden State Special from Philadelphia to New York. A few hours ago I completed the two‑day culmination of the worst eight weeks of my life — the Bar Exam.

Some of today’s questions are still floating around in my mind but, surprisingly, only a few. Veterans of the experience tell me that by tomorrow virtually all the assorted rules of law will leave me, as though written in disappearing ink.

What really occupies me now, though, is not the law or the questions, but the process. Over the last eight weeks I have gone through an unpleasant, dehumanizing experience ‑- with no apparent benefit.

There was a time when law school and clerkships prepared one to sit for the Bar. Nowadays, candidates prepare for the semi‑annual ordeal with expensive Bar review courses starting about two months in advance of the exam. The sole purpose of these courses is to help candidates pass the Bar Exam. Any law picked up along the way is purely incidental, accidental, and transcendental.

To get us through, the courses provide grossly over‑simplified rules, mnemonics, and bizarre, yet memorable illustrations. They also give examinees a peek inside the Bar examiners\’ heads by revealing past methods and tricks.

Questions from the essay half of the exam are routinely released by each state’s examiners. However, for the most part, the 200 questions from the Multi‑state portion are kept secret by the Princeton‑based Educational Testing Service which administers the multiple‑choice part of the exam in 44 states. The review courses manage to get around this secrecy, though. They “de‑program” examinees after each test. As a result, reviewers are able to reveal the tricks, the “always wrong” answers, the red herrings, and even the distribution of sub‑topics within the general areas tested.

The review instructors acknowledge that the Bar is nothing more than the final hazing before induction into the fraternity. A pre‑exam “Good Luck” letter from the New York offices of the nation’s largest review course characterized the New York Bar Exam as “an endurance test … designed to shake you up, to gauge how you react under the gun.”

If this sort of activity is what it takes to pass the Bar Exam, what good is it? Tricks, short‑term memory enhancers, and refined test‑taking skills do not bestow any benefit on the legal profession.

This should not be taken as condemnation of the review courses. The Bar Examiners invite this activity when they require candidates to jump through meaningless hoops. Their testing behavior makes the examiners fair game, and the use of anything short of cheating is legitimate in the battle for Bar survival.

Even if most of what is learned in preparation for the Bar were not soon forgotten, little is the sort of law which will be useful in practice. Renowned trial lawyer Irving Younger prefaced a lecture on the New York statutes of limitations by pointing out that, in real legal practice, failure to verify these statutes would be grounds for disbarment. Then to what end do we commit to memory ever‑changing details which always must be looked up or researched in the course of the actual practice of law?

Its supporters would also be hard pressed to justify the Bar as a grand final exam for law school. Law schools teach the law in terms of philosophy, theory and broad‑based rules. Law professors shun that which they refer to as “black letter law” — precisely what the Bar tests. Anyone. can look up cases and statutes, they say. The important thing is to be able to think like a lawyer.

Twenty years ago the Bar was an essay exam demanding wide‑ranging analysis.

Today, half the exam is multiple choice — a testing style which punishes innovative thought. Even the modern essays are closer to multiple choice questions than to the type of essays expected in law school. Any law student who wrote an essay consisting solely of the issue, the applicable rule of law, a brief discussion applying the rule to the facts, and the outcome of the suit, would be lucky to garner a ‘C’ from a law professor. But on the Bar, this is the formula for full credit.

Nonetheless, perhaps all this senseless tail‑chasing could somehow be excused if it were not for the toll the Bar takes of its candidates. The Bar transforms competent, intelligent, self‑assured students into frenzied rats, desperately trying to wend their way through a mental maze. In the past eight weeks, I have seen all manner of neurotic behavior fostered by the Bar: some reacted by going on eating binges, while others lost their appetites; many also became insomniacs — a condition the incidence of which increased geometrically as B‑Day approached. A once‑happy law student couple found themselves forced to study apart and avoid any discussion of the law because his compulsiveness dramatically increased her natural nervousness. Normally efficient people suddenly became unable to study effectively. Sometimes the condition even blossomed into intellectual paralysis. And, if my circle of friends is representative, chiropractors and ophthalmologists across the country are due for an early August business boom.

Lest we be lulled into thinking that the misery ended with the handing‑in of our test papers, the Bar examiners have arranged for our purgatory to continue. For most of us, the results will not be out until sometime after Thanksgiving. The impact of this long wait is hard on everyone, but particularly so on those who do not yet have a job. For the next four months the already tight legal job market is virtually closed to anyone not already admitted. Employers who have waited this long generally find it to their advantage to wait just a bit longer in order to hire a known quantity.

From the employer’s point of view this is quite a logical approach. An unadmitted attorney is not permitted to perform many of the functions an employer might desire, and if the candidate fails the Bar, the period of incapacity will be extended by at least another six months. Additionally, the new employee’s services will be lost during the study period for the next exam.

Another problem with this seemingly endless wait is that many public sector employers will not even consider candidates before admission to the Bar. Consequently, a person headed for a large firm frequently has secured a position in November of the third year of law school, while a class‑mate hoping for employment as a public defender in Baltimore or Phoenix will not hear until more than a year later. This disparity flows both from the timing of release of Bar results and the constraints limited resources place on most public sector employers.

There is some hope on the horizon, though. This year California is experimenting with a new component to its Bar Exam. In addition to the traditional local essays and the Multi‑state section, California candidates will sit for a third day. The exam on this day consists of writing a research memorandum using a packet of pre‑selected cases and statutes. The student must read and analyze the actual law, then apply it to a factual situation. This format comes closest to anything yet proposed in truly testing that which lawyers do.

If Voltaire [or Leibniz?] were writing the Bar Exam, the Best of All Possible Bar Exams might consist of a memorandum similar to the California experiment and a more law school‑like variation on the local essays. This second part would serve the purpose of testing knowledge of local law, but in a way that would reward creativity and in‑depth analysis. The format would demand less in the way of formal structure and test fewer issues, allowing more time to delve into a question.

Actually, the best of all possible worlds already exists. Wisconsin is one of the few remaining states which grants admission to its Bar upon receipt of a degree from one of its two law schools. Even though there is this automatic admission, Wisconsin has not emasculated the curriculum of its law schools by turning them into three‑year local law Bar review courses. Both Wisconsin’s institutions are what are known as “national” law schools. This means they do not focus on local or “black letter” law. Rather, they teach an over view of legal thought and development, much like Harvard or Yale. Thus, the Wisconsin graduate’s education does not suffer as a result of the degree admission policy. In fact, other states treat Wisconsin attorneys like those admitted anywhere else — by granting admission to their Bar upon application after five years of practice.

The only logical conclusion to be drawn is that the Bar Exam is superfluous, and everyone knows it. Nonetheless, the powers that be continue to trivialize the profession by imposing this needless little initiation rite.

As we pull into Penn Station, two thoughts are upper‑most in my mind. One, I am not going to forget this indignity. Someday I wi1l do my part to rehumanize the process of becoming a lawyer. And two, I sure am glad I did not opt to take two Bars,  otherwise I would be facing the New Jersey essays in twelve hours!

Postscript: In October of 1983 I got a letter that I had passed the Pennsylvania Bar. Indeed, I benefitted from Pennsylvania’s — to my mind — illogical rule that a high enough score on the Multi-state portion resulted in passage without even considering the essays. On some level I was disappointed that my brilliant essays ended up falling in the forest without making a sound.  Also, despite my commitment, I have not done anything to change the Bar exam, although in my teaching of trial advocacy to law students and in presenting continuing legal education courses, I hope I have contributed to that promised humanization.

P.P.S.  Julianne passed the bar!

The post The Bar Exam — Does it Pass the Test? appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

With the World Series upon us, it is time for me to come out of the closet and confess a shameful membership — men who are not baseball fans.

During the early weeks of the season it was no big deal. As the season progressed, though, I was slowly edged into the backfield of my peer group.  Every conversation seemed to turn to baseball.  The trend accelerated as the weather turned nice and baseball outings became de rigueur.

Even in social settings, the talk invariably turns from shop to the “Great American Pastime.”  I am generally able to skirt these conversations, leaving no one to observe, with that air of astonishment only fanatics can muster, that I don’t know a backstop from a shortstop.  Unfortunately,  I am occasionally stranded in right field, unable to punt.

Some time ago I found myself in chambers with a judge, her clerk and the court staff, playing a game called “Acronyms.”  The object is to stump the other players with obscure initials.· Not only was I able to hold my own against BART and SCUBA, but I threw a curb ball at them with COYOTE.  Though I was able to avoid embarrassment over ERA by referring to the constitution, I knew I was about to be tagged in. The judge quickly sensed my fear as she moved in for the kill with RBI.  I was a little startled at how fast they saw through my bluff.  One would think it would be important to keep stats on “Runs by Infielders.”

About ten years ago I decided to face my problem by making an ill-fated attempt to become a baseball aficionado.  The first and, alas, final step in this process was to convince a friend to squire me to a Milwaukee Brewers game.  Even though I had no idea of what was going on, I was having a great time cheering and booing, as cued by the crowd, and munching on all manner of ballpark comestibles.

That is until some now forgotten Brewer strolled up to the platter and hit a foul tap into my lap. I think my buddy, a life-long fan who’d never caught a ball, was about to be gracious about my good fortune. However, when I plucked the ball from my popcorn and returned it to the gridiron with a toss, he simply lost control.  Fortunately, the referee I’d beaned with my lob sent the souvenir pigskin flying back my way.

In the intervening years I have resigned myself to irreversible baseball inaptitude. Generally, I avoid the topic or keep my mouth shut, should it come up.  The rules change in October, though. Suddenly everyone is living and breathing baseball. The only topics of conversation are baseball pools and how many matches the Series will go.  Not to mention the indignity of having the semi-finals pre-empt my favorite show, Cheers (even there I can’t escape baseball!).

I realize it is hopeless to expect to elude baseball in the real world.  So, until the Pendant Race is over, I’ll just watch PBS and damn Abner Doublemint.

The post World Serious appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

The Super Lawyer distinction is given to only a very small percentage of Pennsylvania‘s attorneys each year.  Attorneys are only considered for inclusion in the list of top rated attorneys if they have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement across 12 indicators. Lawyers cannot buy their way onto the list. The selection process, recognized as legitimate by bar associations and courts across the United States, is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Only attorneys who can be retained by the general public are considered. Honorees are selected annually for each state and practice area.

In other news, Martindale-Hubbell has again recognized both Yatvin and Popper & Yatvin partner Howard D. Popper with the highest possible level of professional excellence – AV Preeminent. This peer review rating reflects a combination of achieving the highest General Ethical Standards and Legal Ability ratings.

The post Yatvin a 2020 Super Lawyer – 17th Consecutive Year appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

In 2013, the 8-year-old twins were enrolled as students in the School District. Both girls were non‑verbal, did not recognize danger, and would wander and elope unless constantly supervised.  Everyone agreed that each girl required a 1:1 assistant at all times through the school day, and the Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) for each child provided for such a full time 1‑1 assistant.  Nonetheless, the District failed to provide the girls with 1:1 assistants for many hours each school day.  Despite Parents repeated requests for full day 1:1 assistant for their daughters, no assignments were made.

On March 7, 2014, there was still no regular 1:1 assistant assigned to either of the twins.  At some point during the day, one of the girls eloped from class and then the school building. School employees were not immediately aware that she had disappeared. When they became aware, a search of the building ensued, but she was not found. Over an hour later, a 911 call was placed by someone who spotted her in a snowy field 7 blocks away from school. She was naked except for her jacket. She was picked up by the police and transported by ambulance to St. Christopher’s Hospital.

The Parents were distraught and outraged.  They consulted attorney Michael Basch, a highly respected Philadelphia special education attorney.  Basch was able to negotiate an agreement with the District whereby the twins were placed in a specialized approved private school setting. In addition, the girls were awarded a substantial amount of compensatory services.

The Parents could have left things there, as their daughters were safe.  However, they needed to know that if their daughters ever returned to public school in Philadelphia they would be protected.  They also wanted to do something to insure that no other parent of a child with special needs would suffer the frustration and fear they experienced. So, they brought in Philadelphia attorney Alan L. Yatvin, of Popper & Yatvin, to file suit in federal court. Yatvin is an experienced litigator of special education, disability and civil rights cases in federal court.

In January 2015, suit was filed against the District seeking damages and injunctive relief relating to the provision of 1:1 assistants.((KS and SFM v. School District of Philadelphia, E.D.Pa. No. 15-cv-237)) The suit asserted that, in order to save money, the District had a policy and practice of denying, reducing or eliminating 1:1 assistants to children who needed them. In so doing, the suit asserted, the District discriminated against students with disabilities who required, but were denied, full‑time 1:1 assistants, in violation of the federal Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Pennsylvania law.

At the urging of the assigned judge, former United States District Judge Legrome Davis, the  parties began settlement negotiations aimed at addressing problems in the District’s system of identifying students who need 1:1 assistants and, once identified, insuring that the services are actually provided.  In meetings with the District’s then-General Counsel and the Office of Specialized Services, the parties developed systems to insure that IEP teams engage in the  proper analysis of whether students need 1:1 assistants and, once those teams have made that determination, insuring that there is no bureaucratic or financial interference with implementation of those legally binding determinations.

During the course of protracted negotiations the District undertook to improve its systems to recruit, fund and track the assignment of 1:1 assistants, and update its training of special education directors and school based staff on the considerations and role of an IEP team in determining the need for 1:1 assistants.

Finally, the parties reached an agreement that was approved by United States Magistrate Judge Timothy Rice on September 19, 2019.  In the settlement the District agreed:

1. The determination of whether or not a student needs 1:1 adult support is to be made at the school level by the IEP Team.
2. The District’s computerized IEP form was revised to include mandated, detailed questions related to 1:1 issues, and to incorporate a Worksheet for Determining 1:1 Assistance, which the IEP Team must complete if it indicates in the IEP that a 1:1 assistant is required.
3. When a 1:1 assistant is included in a student\’s IEP, the District must ensure that the assignment for a 1:1 assistant is made within ten days, and during the interim period, the school principal must use available resources to provide the services identified in the IEP.
4. In the event the District is unable to assign a 1:1 adult assistant within five school days, the Principal must give notice to parents, and an IEP Team meeting must be held within ten school days.

The settlement also included creation of a trust fund.

In discussing the settlement, Kathleen said: “Of course I’m glad there is a trust fund to help with my daughter’s many needs, but we would not have settled unless there was also a change in the District’s policies regarding 1:1 assistants.  No parent should have to experience the stress and frustration that we did in trying to get the District to provide a 1:1 assistant.  And no parent should ever get a call that their child was unsupervised at school, got lost and placed in grave danger. I hope this lawsuit has made lasting changes for all children with disabilities and their families.”

Since the settlement was finalized in September, IEP teams are better informed about their role in considering and assigning 1:1 assistants, the actual assignments are happening with fewer delays, and the agreed safety net seems to be working.

“The time this litigation took to bear fruit was frustrating,” said Alan Yatvin. “While we didn’t get everything we wanted, at the end of the day, important changes were achieved, and a broken system is now functioning for children in need.”

Yatvin and Basch both noted that Natalie Hess, the District’s Deputy Chief of Specialized Services, deserves much of the credit for this settlement.  “We respect Ms. Hess’ professionalism, hard work, and her ongoing commitment to improving the system for all special needs students who require 1:1 assistants.”

The post Litigation helps special needs students in Philadelphia appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

All students with diabetes who are now or will be entitled to receive diabetes related care and attend New York City Department of Education schools.

The case, M.F., et al. v. The New York City Department of Education, et al., was brought by the parents of three New York City public school students with diabetes and the American Diabetes Association, suing as an organizational plaintiff on behalf of its members who who include children with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes who attend New York City Department of Education (DOE) schools and their parents.

Popper & Yatvin partner Alan L. Yatvin is counsel for the American Diabetes Association, along with Sarah Fech-Baughman, Director of Litigation at the Association. The federal class action lawsuit filed on November 1, 2018, alleges that the New York City public schools routinely deny students with diabetes necessary services, even excluding them from some school activities altogether, in clear violation of their rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law.  The suit was brought to address systemic failures, to ensure that students with diabetes can attend school safely and have access to the same educational opportunities as their peers. Plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages.  Rather, the lawsuit seeks an immediate overhaul of the DOE’s systemic policies and practices governing the delivery of diabetes-related care to ensure that all students with diabetes receive appropriate care and can participate in all school programs.

In granting class certification, Judge Gershon concluded that the three children and their parents, along with the American Diabetes Association, met the requirements for class representatives and sufficiently represented the class of approximately 2000 students with diabetes in DOE schools.   As a result, she appointed the families and the American Diabetes Association as class representatives. Yatvin’s co-counsel, attorneys for Disability Rights Advocates, were appointed class counsel.

Alan L. Yatvin is a former national chair of legal advocacy for the Association, and a former member of the Association’s national board of directors.  He is a co-author of Diabetes Care in the School Setting: A Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association and Care of Young Children With Diabetes in the Child Care Setting: A Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association, both of which were published in the journal Diabetes Care.  He frequently represents students with diabetes and their parents and speaks on the rights of students with diabetes to groups of parents, medical professionals, lawyers, educators and legislators.

The post Court grants class certification in suit against New York Department of Education on behalf of students with diabetes. appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

The Super Lawyer distinction is given to only a very small percentage of Pennsylvania\’s attorneys each year.  Attorneys are only considered for inclusion in the list of top rated attorneys if they have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement across 12 indicators. Lawyers cannot buy their way onto the list. The selection process, recognized as legitimate by bar associations and courts across the United States, is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Only attorneys who can be retained by the general public are considered. Honorees are selected annually for each state and practice area.

In other news, Martindale-Hubbell has again recognized both Yatvin and Popper & Yatvin partner Howard D. Popper with the highest possible level of professional excellence – AV Preeminent. This peer review rating reflects a combination of achieving the highest General Ethical Standards and Legal Ability ratings.  2019 marks Yatvin’s 36th year as an attorney.

The post Yatvin a 2019 Super Lawyer appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

One might think that the issue was well-settled, but Brown is once again in the news. As a Washington Post op-ed noted yesterday: “More than two dozen of President Trump’s judicial nominees have declined to answer whether Brown v. Board of Education was properly decided.”

On the 50th anniversary of the Brown decision, I wrote an essay for Philadelphia’s newspaper serving the legal community, The Legal Intelligencer.  On the occasion of the 65th anniversary, I am republishing that essay.((  At the time of her death in March 2018, I also wrote of Linda Brown, whose father joined the eponymous law suit on her behalf. ))

The post Brown v. Board of Education at 65 appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

However, one very distinct memory I have from my youth is where I was on January 22, 1973, at about 10 AM.

I was on a senior trip to Washington, DC, with 10 other members of my high school political science class (several of whom I remembered clearly and a few I didn’t recall being there until I looked at the newspaper photo accompanying a story on our trip).  I remember the chaperones: Greg Dean, our poli sci teacher, who was a nice guy, and guidance counselor, Dave Olson, who I will always remember as the adviser who tried to discourage me from applying to college, instead suggesting I consider vocational school.

The main event around which our trip was planned was Richard Nixon’s second inauguration.  In a story about our trip, the Wisconsin State Journal quoted me as saying of the inauguration: “The ceremony was very impressive, even if it was for Nixon.”  My father, who passed away last month at 88, told me that he took a lot of crap for that line, although I could tell from his crinkled eyes and poorly stifled smile that he was not the least bit displeased.

Two days after the inauguration, Lyndon Johnson died.  We were still in Washington for the funeral procession.  My most distinct memory is of Black Jack, the riderless horse with the reversed boots in the stirrups.  On January 23rd we were in the House of Representatives when Nixon announced that the Vietnam peace agreement had been reached in Paris.  That same day we met the Apollo 17 astronauts who were also visiting Congress.  It was a busy week.

On Monday, January 22, 1973, we visited the Supreme Court of the United States.  Little did I realize, in the moment, that I was present for what would become one of the best known and most controversial events in modern American jurisprudence.   Justice Harry Blackmun announced the decision of the Court.  I understood the decision was important, even though it only got 43 seconds on the evening news.

In 1973 I had no plans to be a lawyer.  My dreams of being a marine biologist had been dashed by my complete befuddlement in chemistry class (ironically, my son, Jeremy, has a doctorate in chemistry).  I was into wheel pottery, but I knew potter was not going to be my profession.

It was not until several years after that visit to the Court that I actually read the decision from that day.  I’d finally decided I wanted to be a lawyer, and Professor Murray Edelman assigned it in my college constitutional law class.  I read it again in law school when Professor Telford Taylor assigned it to my constitutional law class. (I wonder what Taylor, the former Nuremberg war crimes prosecutor, would think of my doing defense work at the successor war crimes tribunals in The Hague and Cambodia.)

Over the years I have watched courts and legislators chip away at that seminal 1973 decision.  Nominees to the Supreme Court have been asked about it in detail.  Recent appointments to the Supreme Court have placed the vitality of the decision in ever great doubt.

I haven’t been back into the Supreme Court (except in writing) since that day.  But this Tuesday, as on every anniversary since 1973, I will remember that I was in the Supreme Court of the United States when Justice Blackmun announced the 7-2 decision that would change the lives of so many, ignite 4 ½ decades (so far) of political battles and further fuel ever renewing efforts to interfere with the private decisions of American women.

On January 22, 1973, at about 10 AM, 17 year-old me listened in a hushed Supreme Court as the decision was announced in Roe v. Wade.

The post January 22, 1973, at about 10 AM appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.

Disability Rights Advocates (“DRA”), the American Diabetes Association (“ADA”), and Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin are suing the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) and other New York City agencies for their systemic failure to ensure that students with diabetes can attend school safely and have access to the same educational opportunities as their peers. This constitutes a clear violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

By law, the DOE is required to develop a diabetes-care plan for all students with diabetes. These plans include protocols for measuring a student’s blood sugar, administering insulin, and planning for emergencies—necessary accommodations for anyone with type 1 diabetes. But these care plans are rarely ready by the first week—or even first few months—of the school year. Even after the plans are in place, students continue to miss critical instructional time when they are unnecessarily removed from the classroom for diabetes-related care that could be provided in the classroom. Frequently, the DOE refuses to extend these accommodations to after-school programs, field trips, and other academic enrichment opportunities, as the law requires. Their parents are often required to attend school or programs to provide care themselves.

Plaintiffs the American Diabetes Association and several children with diabetes who attend public schools in New York City and their parents, are suing to remedy this unjust and discriminatory situation. The DOE estimates that at least 2,000 students with diabetes attend New York City public schools. By law, the DOE’s obligations to these students are very clear: Provide routine and necessary diabetes-related care for students with diabetes in the appropriate setting based on the individual preferences and needs of the child, as well as during nonacademic and extracurricular activities, regardless of whether those activities occur before, during, or after the school day. Shifting the burden of care to parents during the school day or school-related activities is unacceptable.

“We filed this class action lawsuit for not only our son, but to see positive change for all children with diabetes in New York City public schools,\” said plaintiff Yelena Ferrer. \”We greatly appreciate school staff’s effort to provide day to day care for our son, but the wide ranging problems with the DOE have not allowed for our son and many others to be safe at school.”

“Diabetes care is routine but absolutely critical for a child to be safe at school,’” Sarah Fech-Baughman, Director of Litigation at the ADA, said. “Excluding a child from class time or an academic enrichment opportunity, such as a field trip, because they have diabetes is harmful, stigmatizing, and unlawful. The ADA is standing up for all children with diabetes in New York City public schools to fix these system-wide problems.”

Plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages. Rather, the lawsuit seeks an immediate overhaul of the DOE’s systemic policies and practices governing the delivery of diabetes-related care to ensure that all students with diabetes receive appropriate care and can participate in all school programs.
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Yatvin, who is serving as co-counsel for the American Diabetes Association in the suit, is a former national chair of legal advocacy for the Association, and a former member of the Association\’s national board of directors.  He is a co-author of Diabetes Care in the School Setting: A Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association and Care of Young Children With
Diabetes in the Child Care Setting: A Position Statement of the
American Diabetes Association, both of which were published in the journal Diabetes Care.  He frequently represents students with diabetes and their parents and speaks on the rights of students with diabetes to groups of parents, medical professionals, lawyers, educators and legislators.

The post Yatvin co-counsels suit against New York Department of Education on behalf of students with diabetes. appeared first on Law Offices of Popper & Yatvin.